Gladys Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks DW, but my point was in relation to the situation above where a photographer steps on private land; if there is no damage and no impairment of the owner's enjoyment of the property, then I didn't hink trespass could be actionable. (Note: persistent trespassing will, of course, impair the enjoyment of the property.) In English criminal law, I thought the trespass had to be accompanied by a criminal act for it to be a part of a criminal charge? I.E. trespass in itself could not be criminal. Could be wrong and raking it all up from years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Thanks DW, but my point was in relation to the situation above where a photographer steps on private land; if there is no damage and no impairment of the owner's enjoyment of the property, then I didn't hink trespass could be actionable. (Note: persistent trespassing will, of course, impair the enjoyment of the property.) In English criminal law, I thought the trespass had to be accompanied by a criminal act for it to be a part of a criminal charge? I.E. trespass in itself could not be criminal. Could be wrong and raking it all up from years ago. In IOM trespass is specificaloly a criminal offence historically in addition to civil remedies. You are right. In England the signs saying trespassers will be prosecuted were oxymorons, you couldn't proseciute, only sue. Here it has always been different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven ! Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 vs Looks the same. But do we know that John didn't nick the avatar in the first place from the bbc. It looks like the BBC has a copy that has a wider view than the above, which might suggest that the BBC had the original! From BBC send a rose site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The plot thickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Methinks Mr Wright needs to post the original and explain how the BBC got an image bigger than his atavar. Or have we been taken for a ride in this topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-doomster Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I changed my atavar from the scales of justice to a red rose about a week ago. The rose picture was one I took in my garden 6 years ago. It is a still capture off my DV video. Imagine my surprise when I clicked a link on the BBC IOM site and the next page had a link to BBC radio Lancashire using my photo as the link button. seems like serious professional misconduct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagman Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Rumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 vs Looks the same. But do we know that John didn't nick the avatar in the first place from the bbc. It looks like the BBC has a copy that has a wider view than the above, which might suggest that the BBC had the original! From BBC send a rose site I'm sorry to ressurrect this topic, but I would be interested to hear John's views on this ever increasing mystery......! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Sorry, I haven't been avoiding this. I am perplexed. I uploaded the atavar from my computer. I have not downloaded from the BBC site. The picture is with a whole series of rose pictures from my garden taken some years ago and stored on a previous computer and transferred to this one. I woulsd certainly not have posted unless I thought it was correct. I cannot explain. I have neither the time nor inclination nor ability to check all of the 100+ rose pictures to see size date, last modified etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ahh! I see you have changed the title of the thread, John! I think the original thread was titled something on the lines of "Those shits at the BBC are a shower of thieving bastards and I'm going to sue the arse off them for ripping off my heavily copywrighted picture which I own of a rose, the one I use as an avatar" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 There is the possibility that John had previously visited the BBC website and inadvertantly picked up the BBC rose, which was then held in his cache. When looking for a rose avatar, this picture could then easily have been 'found' when he searched his computer - and as John had many rose pictures on his computer, for John to then select this particular rose thinking it to be one of 'his own' rose pictures stored on the computer. My client is innocent I tells yer! P.S. John - that'll be £1100 quid please! _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 There is the possibility that John had previously visited the BBC website and inadvertantly picked up the BBC rose, which was then held in his cache. When looking for a rose avatar, this picture could then easily have been 'found' when he searched his computer - and as John had many rose pictures on his computer, for John to then select this particular rose thinking it to be one of 'his own' rose pictures stored on the computer. My client is innocent I tells yer! P.S. John - that'll be £1100 quid please! _ And that's including a discount for it being a red rose. Had it been a white rose.......! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 There is the possibility that John had previously visited the BBC website and inadvertantly picked up the BBC rose, which was then held in his cache. When looking for a rose avatar, this picture could then easily have been 'found' when he searched his computer - and as John had many rose pictures on his computer, for John to then select this particular rose thinking it to be one of 'his own' rose pictures stored on the computer. My client is innocent I tells yer! This seems the most likely cause, but that would mean that Mr Wright had made rather a chump of himself after posting this: I changed my atavar from the scales of justice to a red rose about a week ago. The rose picture was one I took in my garden 6 years ago. It is a still capture off my DV video. Imagine my surprise when I clicked a link on the BBC IOM site and the next page had a link to BBC radio Lancashire using my photo as the link button. And after originally accusing the BBC of copyright theft from this sight, it really does seem someone is very, very wrong and someone else is very, very right and the BBC replied Thank you for your e-mail regarding the picture of a red rose currently used on a link to the BBC Lancashire website. The picture used is of BBC copyright, and although may be similar to your shot, it is not the same picture. I hope that answers your question. Thanks again for getting in touch with us. I can't tell the difference and I am not minded to pursue it please visit yourselves to see what you think http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6231027.stm I wonder how much the BBC spend of our license fee answering emails from cranks! This lady might feel a bit sheepish after giving her undying support and loyalty!! A bit strange but not worth losing sleep over surely? I disagree. I was outraged on John's behalf when I read this thread. Pinching it is one thing. Picture theft is rife on the web, but denying it afterwards? And by the BBC FFS? The very organisation who would like us to think it upholds values of honesty and integrity? Sheesh. You're taking it very well John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (VinnieK....you deleted your reply......!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (VinnieK....you deleted your reply......!) I know, thought it sounded a little bit petty as there's every possibility that John has just made an honest mistake. Still, my heart lifts a little at the thought of the idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.